Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted to debate with the Minister one of the most radical changes in local government since the foundation of the State. It is historic, as the Minister stated.

I am sorry the Minister began his contribution on a bad note by criticising centralised control because I was 20 years working in local government and this Bill sees decentralisation down to the district. The abolition of rates in 1977 gave the power to central government because if a local authority does not have money, it cannot do anything and raising money locally is difficult. The abolition of rates by Fianna Fáil was hugely important in centralising control. The growth of the quangos also played a major part in the centralisation process, which is now being undone by the Minister.

The Minister stated in his contribution that he is bringing forward a set of wide-ranging actions to deliver reform across key areas of local government to address the weaknesses that have built up over many years. This Bill gives legislative effect to those proposals and I am privileged to be in a position to contribute to this debate. The Minister has the betterment of local government at heart.

The Minister announced last week a €98 million funding boost for local government in terms of the general purpose grant. That represents an 11% increase in local government funding.

For as long as I have been in politics, which is almost 20 years both in local government and as a Member of the Seanad, we have been talking about political reform. It cannot be denied that this Bill is reforming from a structural, administrative and functional perspective. While I would like to see further devolution to local authorities, and the Minister said there would be further expansion of the local government role in future years, that should be based on strong local democracy, a community spirit and citizen empowerment. I am delighted the Minister mentioned that he was putting citizen empowerment on a legislative basis because previously it was on an ad hoc basis. I look forward to hearing more about that.

Another devolution of function concerns rates in that county councils can decide to decrease or increase rates and any savings made will be devolved to local authorities, with all the rates harmonised downwards. In the past week Waterford local authority harmonised the rates downwards.

I welcome the transfer of a total of 44 functions to the district councils, and 24 others may be transferred. If 50% of the councillors want to do that, the power is now in their hands.

The Minister mentioned local government proofing in all sectors. That is a welcome development.

Section 72 of the principal Act provided for the transfer of functions from other public authorities as well as from central government. There is provision for that in this Bill as well.

The lack of reserve functions and financial dependency in previous years meant that local government was a creature of central government and of the managers in implementing policies dictated from on high in terms of the finance made available to it from central government. Local authorities had no power to raise finance locally.

I want to comment on section 3A of the Bill. The Association of Municipal Authorities, the ACC and the Local Authorities Members Association have studied the Bill with a fine tooth comb.

I commend their work on behalf of the local members. They have made some very good recommendations to the Minister of State and I am confident that he will listen to some of them. One is that the word "council" should be added to the municipal district areas. I support this proposal because a district is a place while the word "council" denotes the administrative body. It will not take much to change that and it will not cost anything.

Will the Minister of State consider the power of the municipal district in section 29? I know that varying the rate was proposed in the Putting People First document published in 2012. There is a local community development fund but the district should have discretion to use that for specific projects in certain circumstances where they want A, B or C in their district for two years. In the North of Ireland they have the discretion to use what they call the Tesco tax for large corporations. That is another proposal we might consider.

Overall, however, I welcome the introduction of the municipal districts. They are not a new concept but they have taken a long time to implement. I read the Barrington report 20 years ago which mentioned the district councils. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is implementing the recommendations of that report. I know that we will lose some fine town councillors because the area is much bigger than that of the town council and because some of the town councillors work full time they would not be able to commit the time or energy to the wider district area which is regrettable. The devolution of power to the district will more than compensate for that because the town councils did not have any powers. It is not possible to compensate for a good person but it is possible to ensure that the districts will have more power.

The Minister of State mentioned the county and city development boards and devolution. Under this section the local community development committee is independent. I wholeheartedly welcome this independent status because the organisations there expressed a fear that they would lose their independence. I reiterate that they will not and want to clear up any doubt that the local community development committee, LCDC, in its own right may be the contracting authority for programmes and measures pertaining to local government. The Association of County and City Councils, ACCC, and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland, AMAI, have raised some concerns about section 35 that the chief executive officer, CEO, of the council shall select and nominate to the LCDCs. This leaves one individual with the power to nominate to the LCDC. The nomination will then go to the council and be agreed without omission or audition, as stated in the Bill. That is not good. We see what happens to appointments that are not ratified in an open and transparent way. It should not be brought for rubber-stamping to a council. It should be ratified and agreed by the council. It was always done that way and was a reserved function, not the preserve of the CEO. The LCDCs should be independent in their own right. The strategic policy committees, SPC, should remain separate but part of the LCDCs. There is a recommendation that the chair of the LCDCs would be on the SPC. I would like the Minister of State to examine that because both need their independence. They need to be coordinated and how this is to be done needs further consideration.

In the corporate policy group, the registered political party constitutes at a minimum 20% of the total membership. Sometimes there are big parties, such as Fianna Fáil, and more often very small parties. It could happen that a registered political party might not have any member on the SPC. That would not be right for a registered political party. The same would be true for independents. There could be a large group of Independents who would not be registered at all. The grouping system did work. Would the Minister of State comment on that or consider it again?

Section 36 deals with the title of mayor and deputy mayor. It is good that the districts are over 20,000. The AMAI recommended that it be 25,000 but the district and the cities have the power to use the title mayor or whatever they want. We know how important the county identity is to its people.

As he is from Kilkenny, the Minister should know that the county and the local authority is sacrosanct also. I ask him to consider giving the county the power to elect the mayor because it is a title that is in use and reinforces a sense of civic leadership. Mayor an chontae is one option but I ask the Minister to examine that. Also, the Minister might tell the House how the directly elected mayor of Dublin process is shaping up.

On the local property tax, the Minister has given a commitment that in 2015 the spending of 80% of the property tax will be decided by the local council. I welcome wholeheartedly the second legal opinion on that, which local councils have sought for a long time. Not only has the Minister given that power to the county council, but he has also given it to the district council.

I wholeheartedly welcome what the Minister is doing on the provision of training for councillors. It is overdue and badly needed but I have a question in that regard. If a councillor fails to attend, which is compulsory under the regulations, he or she will be penalised. Councillors are not even paid a minimum wage and therefore they have to work. If a person is unable to attend the training on the day it is being provided due to work commitments, and where other exceptional circumstances do not apply, that must be considered an exceptional circumstance. I ask the Minister to examine that while welcoming what the Minister has done in that regard because training bodies are important. It is welcome also that councillors are required to report back because we must ensure that the training bodies are working well. The training bodies that provide the training should ensure a questionnaire is given to the participants at the end of every session and that councillors are supported to ensure they report back because they do not have secretarial services available to them.

I have not mentioned the rate base and the variation in the rates. I welcome the fact that the Minister is re-examining the question of the 50% vacant commercial properties. I have much more to say but I will contribute to the debate on Committee Stage.